Victory Conditions

[thebull0425]

What will the nature of the victory conditions be?

Is it going to be territories, or something different. Any thoughts on that?

[Hengest]

To be honest we haven't really gone into detail on the specifics yet. What we were thinking about was trying to re-capture some of the point system feeling that MTW one used. In that game you had to meet varied criteria for each faction- territories was amongst that but also a certain few types of buildings and so on. With scripting now we can do a lot more than ever before. I'm sure we can cook up some good stuff. Any suggestions yourself?

[thebull0425]

I like the concept of points. I also believe that some territorial criteria needs to be included.

It has to be a mixture of the two, but I don't like the idea of owning x number of provinces. It makes sense in RTW, because you are trying to establish the Roman Empire, but it does not make sense for MTW. Having said that, good luck in determining the criteria, lol.

France for example could be required to establish a unified France. Byzantines to restore the Eastern Roman Empire, the Muslim factions to be the representatives of Islam, things like that I guess.

[Hengest]

Exactly

[Lamanz]

Very nice!

I always hated how I felt pressured to conquer all of Europe, when I just want to unite Wales, Scotland, Ireland, northern France and the Netherlands under the English banner (not even a quarter of the territorial requirements in vanilla)

[Archaon]

one of the things we were discussing recently was the idea of scripted custom missions, these would be parallel with your factions victory goals. for each one that is completed you gain rewards, and it brings you one step (point) closer to victory!

>>hehe i wonder how far fans will take that little bit of info<<
sorry team couldn't resist

[Lamanz]

[Basileos]

i liked the victory conditions of MTW very much.In MTW,you could also gain points by building.for example,if you were the moors,you had to build the alhambra in granada,and if you were the french,you had to build the notre dame and the (?-)chapel in paris,and krak des chevaliers in tripoli region.is this possible to do this?i think this would surely rock too!

[Archaon]

i liked the victory conditions of MTW very much.In MTW,you could also gain points by building.for example,if you were the moors,you had to build the alhambra in granada,and if you were the french,you had to build the notre dame and the (?-)chapel in paris,and krak des chevaliers in tripoli region.is this possible to do this?i think this would surely rock too!

we will be discussing this in detail in our head office over at he DotS forum very soon buddy so hold your ideas til then

[Lavastein]

is there a way to GREATLY lower squalor and distance to capital? I know that if that was done to a greater scale it could allow the player to enjoy doing what has been proposed here. So that the player can simply enjoy conquering english isles and building it up to its maximum level. Such things like that have always pleased me greatly. One thing that has always saddened me was when i was forced to sack my own cities just to lower the squalor levels. Ive never heard of a city rebelling because of too many rats. That and the city represents the main city in the countryside, so why should squalor ever be evident.

Distant to capital is also annoying, I always believed that if a city is run fairly, low taxes, and well protected and managed, there shouldnt be a distance to capital problem.

[Lamanz]

is there a way to GREATLY lower squalor and distance to capital? I know that if that was done to a greater scale it could allow the player to enjoy doing what has been proposed here. So that the player can simply enjoy conquering english isles and building it up to its maximum level. Such things like that have always pleased me greatly. One thing that has always saddened me was when i was forced to sack my own cities just to lower the squalor levels. Ive never heard of a city rebelling because of too many rats. That and the city represents the main city in the countryside, so why should squalor ever be evident.

Distant to capital is also annoying, I always believed that if a city is run fairly, low taxes, and well protected and managed, there shouldnt be a distance to capital problem.

A little off topic, perhaps?

[Archaon]

@Lavastein, please stay on topic or start a new thread

is there a way to GREATLY lower squalor and distance to capital? I know that if that was done to a greater scale it could allow the player to enjoy doing what has been proposed here. So that the player can simply enjoy conquering english isles and building it up to its maximum level. Such things like that have always pleased me greatly..

Allowing this would not be in the interests of our mod goals because to do so would ruin historical accuracy, however, in DotS following the historical expansion on your faction will be made easier than if you were to try and expand un-historically.
The details on this will not be revealed here though so please do not ask.

One thing that has always saddened me was when i was forced to sack my own cities just to lower the squalor levels. Ive never heard of a city rebelling because of too many rats. That and the city represents the main city in the countryside, so why should squalor ever be evident.

Distant to capital is also annoying, I always believed that if a city is run fairly, low taxes, and well protected and managed, there shouldn’t be a distance to capital problem

The distance to capital penalty is the games way to portray the faction leaders inability to enforce rulership over far away lands due to lack of presence, this give local upcoming rulers/leaders the perfect opportunity to rebel against the crown and declare rulership of their own.
In DotS we have developed a way for these regions to be governed in a way that is more historical yet you will loose a certain level of control of these far away settlements… our new feature has not been thoroughly tested so we will not divulge info on it as yet, though I can tell you that one of the included features will be a focus on loyalty-happiness-law vs unrest resulting in a forced revolt or continued authority (rulership).

[thelonius viking]

Something I would like to see are growing rebellions.

For intance your playing as Denmark and in the far north around Uppsala a small band of Viking raiders (2-3) a unit of peasant archers and a unit of Huscarls pop up. They're not a serious threat to your settlements and your strapped for cash anyway cause your locked in a bitter war with the HRE and Poland. So you leave em be. Lo and behold 2 turns later, they are now led by a generals bodygaurd and 2- 3 units of Norse swordsmen. A few more turns and your settlements are getting angry, your income is dropping, and your faithful family members are either gaining or losing loyalty drastically as you continuously refrain from action. After like 10 turns you've got a full blow rebellion on your hands, with a ringleader, several of your own nobles following suit possibly taking thier provinces with them and a somewhat professional army 1-2 stacks large standing smack dab in the middle of your empire. Whats a king to do? Now thats a challenge. And could be historically accurate depending on the timing and faction.

[Hengest]

It's pretty impossible to 'grow' a rebellion with direct control or scripting but we can make a rebellion a bigger problem over time if it is not dealt with and make it have knock-on consequences. Thta is something we are planning to implement.

[thelonius viking]

It's pretty impossible to 'grow' a rebellion with direct control or scripting but we can make a rebellion a bigger problem over time if it is not dealt with and make it have knock-on consequences. Thta is something we are planning to implement.

Word. Sorta like if you don't knock em dead within a couple o turns they start blockading your ports or attacking your poorly defended settlements?

Or maybe if you don't deal with one rebel stack soon enough another will pop up, and then another and another...

I gotta hand it to you guys, I've tried just about every M2TW mod out there and this one I am eagerly drooling for. I truly admire your passion and dedication to the subject.

[Lamanz]

Oh man, I am just loving this more and more. This mod is going to be AMAZING!

[cowlesz]

I just have to say that Im please your changing the Victory conditions and adding a load of new factions. I came over to M2TW after playing Europa Universalis 3. I love the way that game has no victory conditions and hundreds of factions.

M2TW will be greatly improved with your mod!! Cant wait for it to come out.

[H.r.E.]

with this "growing rebellion"-feature it would be unfair if rebels could hide in forests so you would never see them but there armies get larger and larger until they attck

edit: btw i would add more rebellions in north italy

[AnthoniusII]

with this "growing rebellion"-feature it would be unfair if rebels could hide in forests so you would never see them but there armies get larger and larger until they attck

edit: btw i would add more rebellions in north italy

I played SS too and the ambushes and the non retreat feature are of my favorit!
Why rebel ambushes are not good?
Ambush was the main rebel warfare!
In a realistic game you will need a lot of spies and to moove carefully...
That is what war is all about!
This mod will offer muximum realism(that is why i help with the byzantine roster)!

[H.r.E.]

ya hmm , so this is one of the parts you want to make it more challenging and more challenging to have an bigger empire ? [ i read about the point-victory conditions and stuff and about making it less needed to conquer that much{i find it pretty cool indeed}]

EDIT: ok not you but i mean the DOTS team